Obama Tax Proposal Would Slash Charitable Donations

by JASmius



I've said it before and here is further, redundant proof of it: Leftists are the biggest monopolists on the planet, and absolutely will not tolerate any competition - especially when it comes to compassion (via Newsmax Insider):

Barack Obama has once again proposed to limit the value of the charitable tax deduction for high-income contributors — a move that would cut charitable giving by nearly $10 billion and in the end hurt those it is intended to aid.

Obama in his budget asked Congress to limit the value of a deduction for a charitable gift made by high-income households to 28%, even though the top tax rate this year is 39.6% for those with taxable income of at least $464,850.

This is the first motivational level: Simple, straightforward screwing of the upper middle class "rich," which is to say, those economic heretics that have the unmitigated gall to be (1) independent of government and (2) the resources to remain that way (for now).

But it goes much deeper that that:

The administration claims the proposal would "make the tax code more equitable" because the value of the tax deduction is proportional to one's tax bracket "so it is less valuable to those in the lower brackets."

Confusingly articulated, but the gist (I think) is that it's not "fair" that those in the "lower brackets" can't afford to give as large a percentage of their income to charity, so the feds are going to force those in the "higher brackets" to start receiving visits from the Ghosts of the Christmas Temporal Continuum.  A nonsensical justification, naturally, since what matters in the big picture isn't how much each taxpayer chips in, but the overall amount charities receive.  And under The One's decree "proposal," charitable organizations would receive a lot less:

But the proposed limit would have negative and possibly unforeseen effects, according to a Forbes.com article by Howard Husock, vice president for policy research at the Manhattan Institute.

Oh, trust me, Mr. Husock, there's nothing unforeseen about it.

Husock cites research showing that in one recent year, just 2.6% of American households had an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000. These households accounted for 25.1% of all income and 29.5% of the total value of charitable donations made by all households. Because the high earners account for such a large proportion of charitable giving, imposing "what amounts to a tax increase on such giving would, not surprisingly, reduce charity overall," Husock states.

"High earners" account for such a large proportion of charitable giving for the same reason Barack Obama wants to insatiably "soak" them: That's where the money is.  And, all things being equal, most of them, at least, would, given a choice, prefer to give their money to private charities than have it plundered from them at the point of a quasi-metaphorical gun.  And The One knows it, which is why he wants to further disincentivize charitable giving.

Why would he seek to do such a thing?  Two reasons: (1) It reinforces the Left's "the rich are greedy" class warfare Narrative; and, even more to the point, (2) this additional blow to private charities would further weaken and destabilize them and increase the likelihood of their having to close their doors - thus artificially ginning up additional justification for the welfare state to "step in" where the "greedy private sector" has "abandoned people in need".

In other words, eliminating the competition.

But it would not be without its roaring irony:

[T]he impact would be greatest in the blue states where the high-income donors are concentrated. Of the 4.5 million high-net-worth itemizers in the country, nearly half are concentrated in nine blue states, ranging from 708,000 in California to 100,000 in Connecticut. All these states voted for Obama in 2012.

And since charitable contributions tend to focus on organizations close to home, Husock observes, charities in these states would suffer the most.

In a further irony, the proposed change in the tax code would impact lower-income Americans as well as the wealthy contributors. Around 80% of high-income donors make donations to organizations that provide for the "basic needs" of the poor in education, healthcare, the economy, and other areas.

So the proposed tax code change would ultimately cost the very people it is designed to benefit. [emphases added]

But is that really such an irony?  After all, the true intended beneficiaries of this "proposed" tax change are not the "poor," "the downtrodden," those who "lost life's lottery," but Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrat Party, and the welfare state itself.  Because there is one, and ONLY one, "righteous" mode of Good Samaritanism, and that is if our benefactors are public sector drones crusading for social and economic "justice".

Especially since the private sector is vastly superior at that as well.

And they can't ever let an idea like THAT gain public traction.